Yudu - Adults Learning March 2011 Volume 22 Number 7

don’t know about) what’s already going on. Elisabeth Hoodless drew attention to cuts that are undermining good voluntary work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s own work on statutory services for communities in Bradford (the Working in Neighbourhoods project) shows what is being achieved right across one huge local authority to sort out community issues, involve active citizens and volunteers, and work with councillors and services. It is certain that services like these, which exist in many other local authorities, will have to be wholly or partly cut. Workers and volunteers, and their skills, will be lost. Ironically, projects like these, that are already meeting several Big Society aims, are being dismantled before our eyes. Worryingly, there are few signs that government is taking these concerns into account.

Running services

Second, community groups need to be geared up to run services and develop communities. There are unquestionably some community bodies that already have the skills and the determination to deliver services and plan their communities. Others will find ways to develop the necessary skills. But we know from existing work that not all community bodies can, or even want to (see the JRF’s 2002-06 Neighbourhood Programme). From experience, we know that this is likely to lead to a patchwork quilt of coverage, with some communities well provided for and others less so. Not only that, but community bodies will certainly come up against fierce completion in bidding to run services or take over local assets. Arms-length bodies linked to local authorities as well as private businesses will also be in there bidding for the work. And although Big Society and the Localism Bill take pains to highlight ‘community bodies’, government is relaxed about opening up public services to the private sector. And there’s an obvious risk that private-sector bodies will be less sensitive to local problems and priorities than community organisations.

Support for communities

Third, there is the question of support for communities wishing to benefit from the new powers. Becoming, for example, a designated body with powers to plan and develop in communities is bound to be a detailed and painstaking process. We know from JRF research (for example, from recent seminars run by JRF’s Community Assets programme) that communities will often need advice and other resources from experienced community- support bodies in order to understand complex processes and complete intricate formalities. It’s still not clear where this support will come from (the Transition Fund? The community organisers?), nor whether the amount of support available will be able to meet the demand. In this field too, it’s likely that there will be other bodies (such as developers and their local partners) who will be keen to capitalise on the opportunities available. With bigger resources and experienced, dedicated staff, they will often be in a better position than voluntary bodies to strike quick deals with communities and thus gain control of planning and development processes.

Fourth, the nation’s poorest communities need to be considered. We know that reces- sion bites deeper, and lasts longer, in poor communities. To this double whammy, add the fact that volunteering is harder to sustain in these communities and that the organisational skills needed to participate in the Big Society and localism tend not to exist. Poor communities usually need community-development support and other resources to be able to take part on equal terms. But it is precisely the community- development support from voluntary and statutory bodies that is falling under the axe as local authorities are forced to prune budgets. In communities already bruised by loss of jobs and public-service cuts, the expectations raised by the rhetoric of the Big Society may prove impossible to realise. We face the prospect of a twin-track society, with the strongest and best resourced bodies able to advance, while the least experienced bodies and the poor communities they serve fall further and further behind in an unequal contest for scarce resources.

John Low is Programme Manager, Policy and Research, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Running services

Support for communities

Further reading